Artifact Arrest

[bladephotog]

Doesnt matter if an archie is "interested" in an item. What we are discussing is the "historical significance" of that "junk", or the wreck it came off.

As for the selfishness, the way I see it is; I spent the time and money to dive a wreck or even conduct salvage ops, I deserve to keep the items I take. Now if they are important to the history of my state, country or the world, then it should be hands off, or recover WITH the archies so that I can stand in the museum and point and tell my family "I found this wreck, and I recovered that item."

FD

By "interested" I mean historically significant. I agree with you for the most part. If you spend the money to find the wreck, legally lay claim to it and it turns out to be of historical significance then the government should reimburse you for your time and expenses if they are going to take it from you.

But so many of our wrecks here in the Great Lakes have been stripped by the average Joe diver looking for a souvenir. They didn't find the wreck. They didn't file any legal claim to it. They just showed up and stripped it screwing ALL of us in the process.

As a diver I'd rather been on an intact wreck than either a shell-of-a-wreck or an artificial reef. Take the George A. Marsh in Lake Ontario for example. That wreck is loaded with artifacts. It's a wonderful dive. By viewing all of that "junk" I can get an idea of what life was like aboard that ship. And in the context of the size of the ship, orientation and with the knowledge that 12 of 14 people drown when it sank. It was a much more personal experience diving that wreck than a stripped wreck or the Spiegel Grove. I mean what the hell is the point of shipwreck diving if there is nothing to see?

And defining what is historical and what isn't is a subjective thing.